• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

What should a skeptic make of 9/11 criticism?

madfoot said:
See that? A "convincing case that the 'official version' is almost entirely untrue". That's not me saying that, that's not a truther, that's the publisher. I'm sure he doesn't talk about holograms or inside jobs, but it sounds to me like he's pretty critical of the established narrative nonetheless. If I'm wrong, I'd like someone who read the book to tell me so.
Click to expand...


You are taking the word of the publisher over the word of the author?


Hm...
 
The Platypus said:
It's telling how you CTers throw these tantrums when called out on your dishonesty.
Click to expand...

Greetings, Platypus,

It appears that you are using 'Conspiracy Theorist' in a pejorative manner.

What exactly is your intended meaning in the usage of this term?

Cheers!
 
Miragememories said:
But in this forum, you are the lowest of the low if you disagree with the prescribed truth, the Official Story.

And in spite of what they may say, there is an acknowledged Official Story.

Disagree with the NIST reports or the 9/11 Commission and you will quickly discover the boundaries of the Official Story.
Click to expand...


Odd, I posted a disagreement with one of the conclusions of the NIST NCSTAR 1, and I have seen others, such as R.Mackey, do so as well. Funny how no one called me "lowest of the low".

Maybe that is because I actually demonstrated how and why I disagreed with decent arguments rather than simple incredulity.
 
madfoot said:
I'm listening to the answers, but Hokulele didn't post an answer, he just attacked me.
Click to expand...

Hokulele didn't attack you, she asked you why you relied upon an advertising blurb from the publisher to form your opinion when the actual authors views are pretty well known and most certainly not in favor of what truthers espouse. It wasn't a trick question.
 
madfoot said:
I don't have a burden of proof, I never said he was a truther, I just stipulated that there might be some reasonable premise from which truthers come from. Am I way off? Explain to me how.
...
Click to expand...

A premise for what? Certainly NOT a premise for anything that truthes claim, because Farmer is very clear that the 9/11 Commission did an excellent job and rightly identified Al Qaeda as the perpetrators of all the death and destruction - and no-one else.
 
madfoot said:
...
See above. I never said he was a truther, but it is a substantial criticism of the "official story". Don't believe me? Read the Amazon description of the book:
...
Click to expand...
Ok. Suppose you are in high school. English class. You are assigned to diuscuss a book.
In your book report, you quote the Amazon description of the book and go solely from there, without actually reading the book.

Please, madfoot, grade that book report! Would you expect to get an A, or an F?
 
Shoof said:
Greetings, Platypus,

It appears that you are using 'Conspiracy Theorist' in a pejorative manner.

What exactly is your intended meaning in the usage of this term?

Cheers!
Click to expand...

After years and years of debating 9/11 Conspiracy Theories (CTs) other than the established story of 19 hijackers bring down several buildings by crashing planes and thus setting fire, a clear picture emerges:

All CTs are wrong.
They start with wrong premises. They assume as fact claims that are false. They are riddled with faulty logic, incompetent science and plain inventions. They come to wrong conclusions. Usually, the comclusions are at the start of the CTer thought process, and facts and logic often get mended to arrive at pre-conceived conclusions.
 
madfoot said:
You think I'm here to advertise his book? ^_^
Click to expand...

Wow, your English comprehension is pretty bad :eek:


Hokulele told you that your argument does not rest on Farmer's actual book (which you have not read) but on an advertisement for the book, namely the Amazon description thereof, which you quoted.
 
madfoot said:
See that? A "convincing case that the 'official version' is almost entirely untrue". That's not me saying that, that's not a truther, that's the publisher. I'm sure he doesn't talk about holograms or inside jobs, but it sounds to me like he's pretty critical of the established narrative nonetheless. If I'm wrong, I'd like someone who read the book to tell me so.
Click to expand...
Then let's try again.

I have read the book. By "official version" Farmer is talking about various government statements issued immediately after the attacks, things like the first NORAD timeline. He believes the 9/11 Commission exposed this "official version" to be false by revealing the truth of what happened. (Which, as I pointed out on the other thread, also demonstrates that terms like "official story" and "official version" really shouldn't be used simply to mean "the established narrative" or "the 9/11 Commission Report", because they really don't.)

If you want specific quotes, in one place Farmer summarises the main problems with the "official version":

"This official version departed from the facts of the day in four critical respects.

First, the official version indicated that the Langley fighters were scrambled in response to American 77, and thus omitted completely the pivotal report of the morning and the source of the Langley scramble: the report that American 11, the first hijack, was still airborne and heading for Washington.

Second, the administration insisted that the military was tracking United 93 and, as a consequence, was positioned to intercept the flight if it approached Washington. This was untrue; the military could not locate the flight to track it because it had crashed by the time of notification.

Third, the official version insisted that President Bush had issued an authorization to shoot down hijacked commercial flights, and that the order had been processed through the chain of command and passed to the fighters. This was untrue.

Fourth, the administration version implied, where it did not state implicitly, that the chain of command had been functioning on 9/11, and that the critical decisions had been made by the appropriate top officials. Thus, the president issued the shoot-down order; top FAA Headquarters officials coordinated closely with the military; Transportation secretary Norman Mineta issued the order to land all airplanes; NORAD Commanding General Eberhart monitoring closely the decisions taken at NEADS and CONR; and so on. None of this captures how things actually unfolded on the day.
Page 255, The Ground Truth, John Farmer
Click to expand...

Those are Farmer's major problems, very few of which have anything to do with the main 9/11 truth talking points. Quite the opposite: many truther points rely on him being wrong about much of the above.
 
Shoof said:
Greetings, Platypus,

It appears that you are using 'Conspiracy Theorist' in a pejorative manner.

What exactly is your intended meaning in the usage of this term?

Cheers!
Click to expand...

Actually referring to those that theorize conspiracies as conspiracy theorists is being polite, I usually call them kooks...:p
 
Sam.I.Am said:
Hokulele didn't attack you, she asked you why you relied upon an advertising blurb from the publisher to form your opinion when the actual authors views are pretty well known and most certainly not in favor of what truthers espouse. It wasn't a trick question.
Click to expand...


I think the lesson here is: do not question madfoot. Questions are personal attacks and he doesn't like that.

Oystein said:
Wow, your English comprehension is pretty bad :eek:
Click to expand...


Actually, I think I see a pattern forming; a pattern that outlines his method of gathering information about the world around him. Just as he formed his opinion of Farmer's position on nothing more that an advertising blurb created by the book's publisher, the only information he needed from Hokulele's post to determine the content of that post was, apparently, the word "advertising".
 
Shoof said:
Greetings, Platypus,

It appears that you are using 'Conspiracy Theorist' in a pejorative manner.

What exactly is your intended meaning in the usage of this term?

Cheers!
Click to expand...
It's used as a pejorative because it is. Explaining events with conspiracy theories instead of actual science, physics, history, etc. is stupid. And folks here tend to differentiate between actual conspiracies (like Al Qaeda planning to hijack planes) with conspiracy theories (like giant laser beams powered by a hurricane to nuke the World Trade Center).
 
I know next to nothing about 9/11, but it seems unrealistic that a skeptic should simply accept the official story.
Click to expand...
Why? The government post thousands of studies and reports and findings every year - do you examine each and every one of them to determine the "appropriate" level of skepticism? Why do you need to be skeptical of the report on 9/11?
 
It's okay to be skeptical of the "official story" as long as you remain equally skeptical of any other "story" you hear about 9-11. When the preponderance of evidence is considered, the "official story", while not perfect, makes the most sense and explains the available evidence better than anything else, IMO.

A true skeptic would hold that theory as the best fit until something comes along that explains the preponderance of evidence better. That has not happened, so the commonly-held narrative stands.
 
Last edited:
Indeed, what should a skeptic make of 9/11 criticism, when it amounts to constant lies and dishonest tricks and tactics used by many other cults and con artists. When it also gets into things such as unsupported accusations against countless people, insulting victims and their families, holograms, space beams, weather and natural disaster control machines, public wide mind control, anti-antisemitism, total paranoia of the gov't, the media, the vast number of experts, even anyone that doubts their criticisms, agents following them around the internet, calls for witch hunts and lynch mobs, dreams of exterminating all those that didn't believe, etc. When they everyone outside their group such things as sheeple and shills, and do nothing but prance around the internet with arrogance, obsessed in trying to bully anyone they can into joining them...

When i've watch these things and far more, over and over for years coming from 911 criticism, indeed what should I make it?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom